Urban planning is a vision of the future that proposes to be essential for creating the best quality of life for the public. Although at times the definition and method of achieving “quality of life” conflict, such as the contrasting views of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs in regards to urban development, there are some common threads in building a successful city. In 1996, a comprehensive long-term approach to planning for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan area was published by Robert Yaro and Tony Hiss for the Regional Plan Association with the mission to improve the quality of life and economic competiveness. “A Region at Risk drew heavily from both Jacobs and Moses in pushing for a new, postindustrial form of urbanism geared towards enhancing the region’s competitiveness…(Larson, 61).” A Region at Risk addressed the threat of a city in decline. “Traffic congestion, environmental degradation, sprawl, inadequate infrastructure, and under-investment in human capital all contributed to a growing inability to compete in the global economy (Larson, 61).” In an effort to improve the quality of life, emphasis was put on the “Three E’s” – economy, environment, and equity. The plan addressed the metropolitan region, not just New York City because of the inter-dependence between cities and the suburbs to create an economically stable and prosperous economy. Coming out of the recession from 1989-1992, this plan created optimism for the potential of the metropolitan area to compete with the global market. Some of the strategies for recovery include building new rail connections, revitalizing downtown and suburban centers, and reform outdated institutions and regulatory systems (Yaro & Hiss, 8). Emphasis on technology, arts and cultural institutions, universities and research institutions is necessary to attract the human resources for success. This plan requires the determination and efficiency of Robert Moses and the dedication to preserving neighborhood characteristics that make the region an attractive place to live.

“Beginning in the 1990s, gentrification emerged as a calculated component of the intentional and methodical production of urban environments amenable to global corporations and their highly compensated workers (Larson, 73). But while gentrification improves quality of life and makes urban areas more attractive, it displaces people who can no longer afford to live there. The article Is Manhattan for Everyone?, addressed the unsuccessful attempts by former Mayor Bloomberg to create affordable housing. Despite incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and density bonuses in exchange for including affordable units in their projects, developers did not always provide affordable housing because the agreements were optional. The current mayor, DeBlasio, wants to guarantee that affordable housing units are required in developments that take advantage of rezoning. There is some controversy about whether such restrictions would hinder the building boom that existed under Bloomberg’s administration. This is reminiscent of some of the criticism Jane Jacobs had of Robert Moses’ building developments for the middle class and wealthy in the 1950s. Maintaining affordable housing in New York City seems to be a constant dilemma as the city progresses.

In a speech former Mayor Bloomberg made September 12, 2013, he outlined New York City’s progress on economic recovery since 9/11 and it mirrors the sentiment of a Nation at Risk, especially with his quote, “The future is not preordained. It is ours to shape and to strengthen as best we can.” The ability for urban planners to address and shape the future of New York City is vital when reacting to problems such as extreme weather, terrorism, crime, or national recession. The challenge is to improve the economy, environment, and equity of New York City while still providing affordable housing for lower income families.

Works Cited

Bloomberg, Michael. 9/11 Memorial, New York. 12 Sept. 2013. Speech.

Larson, Scott. Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. Print.

Pomorski, Chris. “Is Manhattan for Everyone? The Pied-à-terre and the ‘poor Door'” Observer. N.p., 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. <http://observer.com/2014/02/is-manhattan-for-everyone-the-pied-a-terre-and-the-poor-door/>.

Yaro, Robert D. A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington, D.C.: Island, 1996. Print.

In A Region at Risk, the third regional plan compiled by Robert Yaro and Tony Hiss, the authors begin by describing the current state of New York City.  They say that currently, the city sits in a position where they can’t afford to make modest growth in the upcoming years because that will “mask the beginning of a long, slow, and potentially irreversible and tragic decline” (5).  They go on to remark on how in pretty much all metropolitan areas in the United States, during the 1980’s and some years previously, there was a strong correlation between the growth and decline in income between the central cities and the surrounding suburban regions.  The important thing that they realized is that all of the communities within the macro of the major city are intertwined and all of these communities share a “common destiny” (6).

So what did this plan consist of?  One of the most important lessons they learned from the past was that a city can’t only focus on tackling one issue at a time.  In Professor Larson’s book “Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind”, he discusses how the compilers of the third plan lived in an age of “one issue at a time strategic planning” (63).  He goes on to say that the new plan, which was named the “three E’s” was a comprehensive approach for planning the city’s “economy, equity and environment” (63).  Through this plan they would rebuild all three of these aspects in conjunction with each other as opposed to building up one at the expense of the other two.

As Tom Wright relates, the three E’s “formed the basis of a region’s quality of life, prosperity and vitality”.  Additionally this new plan would focus on the downtown employment and residential areas.  This is something that was clearly influenced by Jane Jacob’s philosophies of urban development.  The plan also included aspects of Robert Moses’ philosophy.  The drafters stressed the ability of people to be able to get around, which would help foster a suburban growth.  So they expanded transit access to New Jersey and Long Island, and paid for this by charging automobile tolls.  There are still aspects of the third plan that are being constructed (such as the 2nd avenue subway), but in general “the RPA’s vision of a metropolitan region with strong, vibrant urban communities, seems more achievable than ever”.  With that being said, there are constantly new challenges, which is why the RPA has a fourth plan in the works that will use social media to reach out to the region’s 22 million inhabitants.

Works Cited

Larson, Scott. Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. Print.

Wright, Tom. “The Regional Plan Association: A Civic Planning Model for New York.” SPUR. N.p., 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2015.

Yaro, Robert D. A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington, D.C.: Island, 1996. Print.

The Bloomberg Administration used rezoning as a tactic for reshaping the city. Their goal was to create a city that could compete and be sustained in the twenty-first century. They wanted to advance the city’s economic development program, be able to accommodate the expected population growth and respond to the various needs of the city’s diverse neighborhoods. The interactive New York Times article, “The Bloomberg Years: Reshaping New York” demonstrates the massive impact the Bloomberg administration had on the landscape of New York City. They rezoned over a third of the city adding 40,000 new buildings and around 170,000 housing units. They sought to transform the city’s waterfront. The Bloomberg administration added about 450 miles of bike lanes for the purpose of making bicycling a serious alternative to cars rather than a recreational activity.

For the most, this was a good thing. But one of the many consequences of this major rezoning project was the loss of affordable housing. Mayor Bloomberg and the director of the Department of City Planning, Amanda Burden, claimed that this rezoning project “created opportunities for high-density growth while still preserving low-density neighborhoods”. However, many people criticized this by saying that this led the way to gentrification. Rezoning old industrial areas where people lived inexpensively, as residential ones filled with luxury high-rise building with beautiful city views, forced out many lower-income residents.

The Mayor knew that this was a problem and therefore developed the voluntary inclusionary rezoning policy, which gave developers the option of building higher buildings that would be worth more, if they gave back to the community, in units of affordable housing. The problem with this was that since it was optional, not many developers used it, which meant that there were not enough affordable housing units to go around (there were only 2,769 affordable apartments which made up only 13% of the units built), which led them right back to square one.

Today, Mayor de Blasio has instituted a mandatory inclusionary rezoning policy, which is essentially a system of bribery. If developers want to build, they need to provide affordable units. The Bloomberg Administration definitely accomplished it goal of propelling New York City’s economic development and their capability to compete. However, that came at a price. It will be interesting to see if the opposite is true. Will the city’s economic development be hindered by de Blasio’s plan for affordable housing? Is there a way to allow for both of these things?

In chapter seven of The Life and Death of Great American Cities, Jacobs talks about diversity, business, and business advantages in a city. She mentions that in a city like New York City, its diversity allows it to support small businesses and give them a competitive edge to big business. Small businesses are able to support more specialize products and serve a narrower interest at a more convenient location. In a big city with a large and diverse population, the number of people who falls under the target population of that small business is enough to maintain it and make a profit. On top of that, diverse populations also support diverse interest, leading to more business opportunities. These advantages would disappear in a small settlement, and small business would have a hard time surviving. Jacobs argue that big businesses, in their attempt to satisfy a large number of customers lack the personal touch that small businesses have. Big businesses would fare better in small settlements since they have enough employees and resources to make use of the extra room that the new settlement provides.

Since her book was written in 1961, it was interesting to see if her ideas still apply in a modern city. According to a few sources, it seems that small businesses still remain competitive by being more personal, but they no longer need to be at the convenient location. Businesses can now take advantage of social media, commercials, and other networks to stay relevant and build a “fanbase” (http://www.thestreet.com/story/12116122/1/small-businesses-vs-big-companies.html). None of the sources mentioned that big businesses have any advantage in small towns.Small towns have a smaller population, meaning a smaller business volume and product selectivity (http://www.thestreet.com/story/12116122/1/small-businesses-vs-big-companies.html). Although it is a recent topic, it may be interesting to see if businesses, big or small, have been able escaped the bounds of “cities” due to the recent increase in use of social media.

Author Jane Jacobs dedicates the seventh chapter in her 1961 book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” to the topic of diversity in cities. She touches on the fact that when most people speak of a city, the word diversity is almost impossible to not be mentioned. In terms of New York City, Jacobs focuses on the Bronx; a borough which she views as lacking in “urban vitality, diversity, and magnetism” (Jacobs 149). What Jacobs didn’t mention was the changes that were happening at the time in the Bronx. In specific we can look at one of the biggest projects of the time: the building of the Cross Bronx Expressway by Robert Moses from 1948-1972.

A 2001 article entitled “Decades Later, Doing the Cross Bronx Expressway Right” by Matt Sedensky introduces the perspective of a Bronx citizen who experiences first hand the impact that Robert Moses’ construction had. While it is a short article, it shares the thought process of Mr. McNamara who referred to the project as “a catastrophe for the people up here”.  During the time of construction the values of properties fell due to the Expressway which has arguably lead to the neighborhoods surrounding it to be continuously poor. In her book, Jacobs quotes Kate Simon who mentioned that “The [Bronx zoo] neighborhood trails off sadly into a no mans land…” (Jacob 149-50). When you think of this in the context of the article above, this makes sense. Construction at the time left many neighborhoods uninhabited and extremely poor. 

However this was at the time that Jane Jacobs wrote and published her book. Since then the completion of Robert Moses’ projects have long finished and their impacts have influenced the creation of other similar projects. When you look at the diversity of the Bronx in recent years,  Joseph Salvo, population director of the city Planning Department states that “A borough which was, at one time, largely native-born is now a mix of groups that, in the history of the Bronx, could be unprecedented”. Salvo also explains that this increase in population diversity creates new activities and businesses with qualities that come to be associated with the Bronx. So while Jacobs may have been correct in her depiction of the Bronx at the time, who would she attribute the growing diversity to in todays time? I think it would be worth it to, as Nick mentions in his post, look at the adaptability factor in terms of Moses’ ideas. Perhaps Moses’ was at fault for the lack of diversity in the 19oo’s and perhaps he is also the reason so much diversity exists today.

As I read through Jane Jacobs attack on orthodox planning theory and their lack of empirical supportive data in her famous 1961 work  The Death and Life of Great American Cities , I initially felt swept up in her arguments. Personally, as a physics major, her introduction of empirical evidence as the testing ground for theories, even in a social science, did resonate strongly with my own beliefs. That being said however, after her repudiation of former theories based on their weak foundations, I found her own theory of measuring a city by its diversity to be lacking. After loudly vaunting the merits of empirical support, I would expect her to produce some hard evidence for her own theories.

I am not alone in my critique of Jacobs. In a 2011 article of the Toronto Star, on the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Death and Life of Great American Cities,  Kenneth Kidd analyzes Lewis Mumford’s harsh review of Jacobs’ book in the article Mumford wrote mockingly titled “Mother Jacobs’ Home Remedies”, where Mumford commented on Jacobs’ “naked unawareness” and “mingling of sense and sentimentality, of mature judgments and schoolgirl howlers.” Additionally, Mumford took issue with Jacobs’ encouragement of population density, although as Kidd writes, this had to do with time Mumford was living in, the early 1960s, where thousands left the city due to the congestion of people.

Aside from his critique on how she formulated her theories, one of the fundamental disagreements Mumford had with Jacobs was the scope of her ideas. He found her ideas to be on a scale too small to be significant in actually helping a city, as focused as they are on the individual neighborhood.

That being said however, Mumford also saw the importance to Jacobs’ admittedly unsupported theories, writing, “This able women [sic] had used her eyes and, even more admirably, her heart to assay the human result of large-scale housing,” and felt that her views were something that many people felt but hadn’t been able to  quite articulate.

Kidd concludes with contrasting Robert Moses and Jacobs, and essentially saying that while Jacobs views are great on the small neighborhood scale, you need a powerful large scale infrastructure as only a Robert Moses figure is capable of accomplishing in order to worry about the niceties of neighborhood life.